Author Topic: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion  (Read 20813 times)

Offline lmike

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #20 on: 05/30/2006 11:10 PM »
Quote
mong' - 30/5/2006  2:56 PM

just found that on the ESA website
http://www.esa.int/externals/images/estec-photo-archive/142.jpg

interesting...

Europe (via the UK's BAE) would have had a clear doable path in manned spaceflight for 20 years had it chosen this over the Hermes: http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Slides/sld076.htm   The launcher?  A then smallish Arianne variant.  But Arianne wasn't exactly British, and the UK government had bowed out of manned spaceflight, so the 'space plane from Brussels' was pushed.  Perhaps my reading of the ESA politics is off, but it sure is a shame.

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1955
  • Liked: 186
  • Likes Given: 137
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #21 on: 05/30/2006 11:31 PM »
I would love to have see that vehicle ride on an Ariane 4, it made such sense.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1789
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #22 on: 05/31/2006 12:10 AM »
Quote
Jim - 30/5/2006  5:30 PM


1.  Whatever is under the "new"exhaust duct will have to be moved.  Things like winches for engine platforms, hydraulic power units for the SSME's and SRB's, etc

2.  The holddown posts for the SRB's will have to moved and this will affect the structure as a whole.

3.  TSM's will have to be moved.  This means propellant, electrical, data, AC, and freon lines will have to be rerouted.

4.  Water deluge rerouting

5.  This will waterfall into changes of the routing of the basic utilities of the MLP.

1: exaust could be diverted to the ducts already created for the SRBS, or else the J2 (or linear aerospike) could start seconds after liftoff

2, 3, 4: why? We are talking about a standard size LWET here with standard RSRB's

Only minor rewiring, plumbing, for the main engine apart from the service tower additions for the CEV. I can't see how this would require Major modifications to the MLP.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3901
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 472
RE: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #23 on: 05/31/2006 01:16 AM »
Quote
HailColumbia - 30/5/2006  5:39 PM

hmmmm....

Think it would be cheaper to just build some new MLPs? how many more years can we get out of them anyway?

I think it could turn out to be just as cost-effective to build a couple of new MLPs from scratch, considering the how much the existing ones will need to be modified (stripped bare, all the cutting and rewelding and the internal structure mods for the new openings and supports, re-plumbing and rewiring, etc). At least that way, the new platforms can be designed, bid, and in the build process while the existing platforms can continue with Shuttle launches until the end of the program, then be gracefully retired.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31287
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9570
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #24 on: 05/31/2006 01:44 AM »
Quote
bad_astra - 30/5/2006  7:57 PM

Quote
Jim - 30/5/2006  5:30 PM


1.  Whatever is under the "new"exhaust duct will have to be moved.  Things like winches for engine platforms, hydraulic power units for the SSME's and SRB's, etc

2.  The holddown posts for the SRB's will have to moved and this will affect the structure as a whole.

3.  TSM's will have to be moved.  This means propellant, electrical, data, AC, and freon lines will have to be rerouted.

4.  Water deluge rerouting

5.  This will waterfall into changes of the routing of the basic utilities of the MLP.

1: exaust could be diverted to the ducts already created for the SRBS, or else the J2 (or linear aerospike) could start seconds after liftoff

2, 3, 4: why? We are talking about a standard size LWET here with standard RSRB's

Only minor rewiring, plumbing, for the main engine apart from the service tower additions for the CEV. I can't see how this would require Major modifications to the MLP.

WRT #1, you are not going to launch without starting (totally stupid) and verifying that the main engine is working, therefore a new hole below the ET is required in the MLP.

#2 was WRT to the CLaV part of the thread  

#3  The TSM's are mounted close to the orbiter which doesn't exist in this configuration, so they have to be moved to new points on the aft of the new ET aft structure (which is no longer a SLWET)

#4 because of 1 and 3

Offline Tap-Sa

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #25 on: 05/31/2006 08:17 AM »
TSM? LSWET?


Btw it sounds like Crawler-MLP may not be very good approach to handle launchers of various sizes, changes are costly. Time to look for better alternatives ?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31287
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9570
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #26 on: 05/31/2006 11:29 AM »
Tail service mast
SLWET  super light weight external tank

MLP concept is fine, just converting it from one configuration to another takes time and $.   It was done for Saturn to Shuttle.  It can be done again.  No pad is universal, Delta tried (medium and heavy EELV's) but they are limited in growth

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8515
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1026
  • Likes Given: 235
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #27 on: 05/31/2006 02:21 PM »
I vaguely remember an editorial on a space news site (last two years) argueing that we should scrap the VAB in favor of a more modern way to assemble CALV style launchers. Can not find a link though....

The VAB is 40 years old, has limited capabilities (Max four assembled birds at any one time), dictates the size and shape of the vehicle (by it's doors), dictates verticle assembly, and really was designed for the Saturn V.

While the whole system is being redesigned a steely eyed look needs to made at the VAB/Crawlers... What trade offs are we making to reuse this hardware? They where built for big hardware, but are they right for CALV?

...Honestly I can not see how modifying a MLP would be cheap. Other than saving  the cost of a new MLP frame (Steel prices are in an orbit of there own) I would bet it would cost as much as building a new one.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1789
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #28 on: 05/31/2006 02:27 PM »
Quote
Jim - 30/5/2006  8:31 PM


WRT #1, you are not going to launch without starting (totally stupid) and verifying that the main engine is working, therefore a new hole below the ET is required in the MLP.

Point taken. I am reaching.

Quote
Jim - 30/5/2006  8:31 PM
#3  The TSM's are mounted close to the orbiter which doesn't exist in this configuration, so they have to be moved to new points on the aft of the new ET aft structure (which is no longer a SLWET)

if CaLV is launched from LC40 such modifications become less of a problem. I'm not convinced that CaLV can use either of the current MLP's anyway. Either way, I can't believe the option would cost $3,000,000,000. It was just me dreaming anyway. I wish they'd just go with the EELV's anyway.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31287
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9570
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #29 on: 05/31/2006 02:32 PM »
Quote
kevin-rf - 31/5/2006  10:08 AM

The VAB is 40 years old, has limited capabilities (Max four assembled birds at any one time), dictates the size and shape of the vehicle (by it's doors), dictates verticle assembly, and really was designed for the Saturn V.

While the whole system is being redesigned a steely eyed look needs to made at the VAB/Crawlers... What trade offs are we making to reuse this hardware? They where built for big hardware, but are they right for CALV?

...Honestly I can not see how modifying a MLP would be cheap. Other than saving  the cost of a new MLP frame (Steel prices are in an orbit of there own) I would bet it would cost as much as building a new one.

Limited?  4 vehicles at once?  Apollo/Skylab never used more than 3 bays at once.

SRM's dictate that vertical assembly.

CLaV is big, Saturn V was big, don't see the issue

Offline Smatcha

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #30 on: 05/31/2006 06:20 PM »
Quote
Jim - 30/5/2006  3:30 PM

Quote
SMetch - 30/5/2006  4:29 PM

Quote
Jim - 28/5/2006  7:56 PM

CaLV is not designed yet and won't be for a while.  Shuttle still needs to use the pads.
"Moving" holes in an MLP is not minor.  
ET is 27' dia and CLaV is 33' can't use the same SRB hole config.
Costs per flight would be 2x more

The MLP should be lowest cost change altogether.  For goodness sake it’s an over designed piece of welded plate steel.  This aspect of the change anything and it will cost astronomical sums of money continues to amaze me.  It looks like we need to get into the welded plate steel fabrication business for KSC.  They have obviously lost all sense of what it should cost to do this.

You obviously don't know what is in the MLP.  It is the most costly part, because it is the interface with the vehicle.

1.  Whatever is under the "new"exhaust duct will have to be moved.  Things like winches for engine platforms, hydraulic power units for the SSME's and SRB's, etc

2.  The holddown posts for the SRB's will have to moved and this will affect the structure as a whole.

3.  TSM's will have to be moved.  This means propellant, electrical, data, AC, and freon lines will have to be rerouted.

4.  Water deluge rerouting

5.  This will waterfall into changes of the routing of the basic utilities of the MLP.

More costly than the vehicle itself?

I'm well aware of all the above and it should be no where near the expense of cryo tanks, rocket engines ,spacecraft, life support, command/control, communications, in space power etc of everything above the MLP.  To see such a hefty bill coming from something that should be routine in comparison is amazing.

Everything you described can be found at a brand new run of the mill chemical plant and for alot less.

Also it would be easier just to build a new MLP that matches the vehicle being launched than “modify” the shuttle MLP.

It seems the space program has picked up a lot of inefficiencies when our modern day "modifed" MLP cost more the Saturn V did with a brand new MLP and Tower no less.

What would be a good cost estimate for a new MLP?


“Do we want to go to the moon or not?”
John C. Houbolt - November 15, 1961
Question posed in Letter to Dr. Robert C. Seamans Jr, NASA Associate Administrator

Ralph Ellison “I was never more hated than when I tried to be honest”




Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31287
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9570
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #31 on: 05/31/2006 06:29 PM »
I meant the MLP would be the most costly launch base expense.

No matter what the vehicle is, the expense part of the pad is the vehicle interface.

Building new would not be cheaper.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1789
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 182
RE: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #32 on: 05/31/2006 10:20 PM »
Then yet another argument for EELV. The pads already exist.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
RE: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #33 on: 05/31/2006 11:40 PM »
Quote
bad_astra - 31/5/2006  6:07 PM

Then yet another argument for EELV. The pads already exist.

Don't be fooled.   The Atlas Phase 2 requires a new MLP for LC-41 too.   Manned Delta variants required significant Pad mods at LC-37 too.

ALL of the 50mT+ variants require very serious modifications to existing Pads, because the current facilities were simply never designed for the liftoff thrust, nor are the foundations of the Pads strong enough to support the fully-fuelled weights of those boosters either.

The modifications required to any current EELV Pads for manned vehicle are still quite significant.   Whichever Pad, it would have to be taken out of service for a period of at least two years - during which time that contractor can not launch regular satellites from that Pad and all flights must transfer to their competition.   Boeing last year made noises to the effect that they expected that a manned variant of their Delta-IV Heavy would benefit greatly from having a dedicated pad.   I suspect Lockheed would also prefer that approach too if there were a "blank cheque" available.

All of these are a lot more extensive and expensive modifications than is being indicated around here at present.   Don't be fooled by the pretty-pictures - remember there are no numbers available for you to compare - Ask yourself WHY?

And don't forget that LC-39 has once before been modified for a new vehicle - between Saturn and Shuttle.   There is an experience-base already available to indicate the costs, schedules and work requirements there - and the facilitiy is already the ideal one for handling manned operations being a civillian operation, its not part of a military base like the Pads on the Cape.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31287
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9570
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #34 on: 06/01/2006 12:36 AM »
Yes, there are numbers $500M for pads mods, per OSP and can be done in two years around scheduled launches.

The single body Phase 2 Atlas does not need a new MLP.

Most the Apollo to shuttle pads mods people are gone or move on to other jobs.

There is no difference wrt where a pad is located KSC vs CCAFS.  The same base contractor supports both.  It is called the Cape Canaveral Spaceport

  Also in the EELV era, the DOD does not own the pads, the contractor does and provides all the necessary support for them  The EELV pads are commercial pads, not military as was for Titan.   The following has no real bearing and is just XXXXXXXX

"the facilitiy is already the ideal one for handling manned operations being a civillian operation, its not part of a military base like the Pads on the Cape. "

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1789
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 182
RE: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #35 on: 06/01/2006 12:37 AM »
There aren't numbers to compare perhaps because EELV wasn't given a fair chance with ESAS. I realize you really liked the SDLV concept, but there isn't much S left in the DLV.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8515
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1026
  • Likes Given: 235
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #36 on: 06/01/2006 02:33 PM »
Quote
Jim - 31/5/2006  9:19 AM

Limited?  4 vehicles at once?  Apollo/Skylab never used more than 3 bays at once.

I thought a manned mars mission was for four heavy launches in short order. Due to the propellant boil off issue I would think you would want to have all four heavies stacked in the VAB before the first one flew.

That would require either one of the flights to be manned or stacking of a fifth CEV vehicle after (before) the first mars payload has left the pad. Doesn't a profile with manned abort blackout zones deliver more payload to orbit?

A full VAB will result in no ISS support missions during a mars campaign.

A full VAB will result in no moon base support missions during a mars launch campaign.

Is it the speed nasa can launch that is driving the other propellant issues?

Will one of the MLP's support both Stick and CALV launches? Do four MLP's exist?

Are we going to need an extra MLP? If so would not now be the time to build one? Will it be an expense that bites the program when we go to mars?

With the moon we are looking at 1.5 launches (Two slots in the VAB) plus how ever many ISS support slots we need. So three... If NASA does the prudent thing they will have a second Stick stacked for fast turn arround in supporting the ISS. I believe nasa did that with skylab. So we may be running the VAB with all four slots full during the lunar missions.

Maybe the Stick needs to be stacked in some TBA area outside of the VAB so we can support mars.

Not saying the VAB is a bad thing, just think care must be taken to make sure we are not requiring more of the VAB than it can deliver. I wonder if it is driving some of the propellant issues.

Remember the order is :
   ISS first
   Moon Second
   Mars Third

Now is the time to make sure we are not limiting what we can do on mars.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31287
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9570
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #37 on: 06/01/2006 05:04 PM »

Mars is not entering the picture wrt CALV and CLV planning, only lSS and Lunar flights.  That is too far out to scope.  This is actual planning and budgeting, not my opinion

Offline Damon Hill

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
  • Auburn, WA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 119
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #38 on: 06/01/2006 05:53 PM »
Just supplying the hydrogen for a single CaLV and other normal Cape operations will be interesting enough.  That'll be considerably more cryogen to supply than Saturn V or Shuttle operations ever called for; lots of tank trucks or perhaps a new hydrogen facility constructed for the purpose?  There's been an oxygen plant in nearby Mims since Apollo days.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #39 on: 06/01/2006 06:03 PM »
Okay, first the ISS and Mars missions will not conflict.   ISS is scheduled to be retired around 2016.   It'll probably continue to be used for a while after that of course, but lets assume ten more years to 2026.   Well, that's only 6 years into the development of the Mars mission hardware, so it still won't fly concurrent with ISS missions.   ISS will no longer be in use when we start going to Mars.

There are a few different approaches for the Mars missions which would not max-out the VAB's facilities.   A CaLV launch processing timeline is being planned to be noticably quicker than a Shuttle launch.   It is quite possible to get a Shuttle off about once per month if you really wanted to, so lets use that figure as a nice round number.

For a Mars mission, I see it occurring across a number of CaLV launches, and across two separate stages:

Mission 1 - Automated ISRU pre-crew sortie:

* CaLV - Mission Module: ISRU hardware, Surface Hab Module w/ crew supplies (no crew), Common Lander System & Landing Fuel
* CaLV - Propellant Module: Re-usable TMI/TEI Engines & TMI Fuel

At this point you have a lot of useful hardware waiting on the surface, have tested the TMI propsulsion and Lander systems fully, know that there is a safe Hab checked-out and waiting on the surface already, and you are already "mining" for resources including the fuel to get crews home later.   Only once you *know* everything is working correctly and awaiting a crew, you send them...

Mission 2 - Three separate Launches:

* CaLV - Mission Module: Transit Hab Module w/ crew supplies, Common Lander System & Landing Fuel
* CaLV - Propellant Module: TMI/TEI Engines & TMI Fuel
* CLV - Crew.


Processing *could* then be done in this way...

All payloads are delivered to, assembled & checked-out in the industrial area of KSC. When they are flight-ready, and have been sealed into their payload shrouds already, they are delivered to the VAB for stacking.

Lets assume MLP1 and High Bay 1 are used primarily for whatever CLV/CEV flights are required (to ISS-2 maybe).   Thus, MLP3 is used in HB3 to prepare the Propulsion Module .   MLP2 & HB2 could be used to process the first CaLV with the Mission Module on the second CaLV at the same time.   Total processing time ~1 month, each, concurrent.

The Mission Module rolled-out and launched from Pad A.   It is checked-out automatically once it arrives safely on-orbit, and assuming everything is good-to-go, the Propulsion Module is launched a week-or-so later to automatically rendezvous and dock.   After a further checkout period, the mission leaves for Mars, completely automated.   When the first mission has checked-out on the surface of Mars ~18 months later, you're ready to go with the second part of the mission - sending the crew.

It basically follows the exact same procedure, but adds one CLV launch from MLP1 / HB1 / Pad A bringing the crew up.

The initial versions of all these modules will probably be one-time-use-only.   But later, a new "Block-II" Transit Hab Module, a new Block-II Propulsion Module, and a new re-usable Mars Lander system could all be developed.   The reusable lander would wait in LMO between crews for an MOR procedure.   At that point, all a Mars-bound mission would to launch is just the TMI Fuel, lander fuel, crew supplies and the Crew.   You could *probably* do that using one CaLV and one CLV.

Assuming unlimited budget of course, I would say that the maximum number of CLV flights which could be processed annually would max-out somewhere around 18 flights per year, and I would say that you could theoretically get about 6-10 CaLV's processed and launched from each Highbay annually too.   If you could get those sorts of numbers you'd get a traffic-jam at the Pads, but it's a non-issue.

Given the budget will never allow for such a high rate of flights, the VAB and LC-39 facilities will not get pushed close to its limits even if there were two Lunar missions and one Mars mission per year running concurrently, plus a handful of CLV missions to LEO too.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Tags: